drive_delete_forever

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two traits that matter most: the action is irreversible ('cannot be undone') and it is gated behind confirm=true as an outward-facing/destructive action. It does not describe failure modes (missing name, stale index) or what the caller sees afterwards.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, irreversibility and the safety gate front-loaded, zero filler. Nothing could be cut without losing a required warning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-param destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: it is permanent, it only applies to Trash contents, and confirm is mandatory. Minor gaps remain around error behavior and item identification ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, index, and occurrence. The description only reinforces the confirm parameter's role ('Requires confirm=true'), adding no guidance on how name/index/occurrence combine to identify one item; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete an item') and qualifies the scope ('that is in the Trash'), which separates it from drive_trash (move to trash) and drive_empty_trash (bulk). It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The precondition 'item that is in the Trash' plus the mandatory 'confirm=true' gate give clear context for when this tool applies. No alternative or exclusion is spelled out (e.g. use drive_trash to delete a non-trashed item, drive_restore to recover), so the agent has to infer the routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.